Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-26-82 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1,10 TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 REPORT NO. : PD-26-82 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR REZONING Z-A-2-13-5 PART OF LOT 8, B.F. CONC. (BOWMANVILLE) JEANNE WINTERS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and I Administration Committee rcommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report PD-26-82 be received; and 2. That application for rezoning Z-A-2-13-5 affecting Part of Lot 8, B.F. Conc. , (Bowmanville) be denied due to non-conformity with the provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan and due to the site's location within the 100 year erosion limit of Lake Ontario and the severe erosion problem which presently exists along this section of shoreline. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1981 , staff received the above-referenced application for rezoning. The applicant, Mrs. Jeanne Winters, is requesting the subject by-law amendment in order to change the existing zoning from "Ml -Industrial" to an appropriate residential zone, to facilitate a proposed severance and subsequent construction of a new dwelling unit. Report No. : PD-26-82 . . ./2 The lands in question, identified on the enclosed key plan, are designated "Major Open Space subject to Section 12.3.3" and "Hazard Lands" by the Durham Regional Official Plan. Section 12.3.3. of said plan states: . infilling between two existing residential dwellings which are no more than approximately 300 feet apart and on the same side of the road may be permitted for permanent or seasonal residential development within such areas provided that the Region and respective area municipality are satisfied that such development will not jeopardize the objectives of this plan and that the Medical Officer of Health is satisfied that such development will not create any pollution problems. " I Sections 16.9.9, 1 .2.1 and 1 .3.4 of the Regional Plan are also relevant to this application. Section 16.9.9 insofar as it relates to the proposed severance, since it specifies that all proposed lots shall have frontage upon and access to a public road, maintained on a year-round basis and of a standard of construction adequate to provide for additional traffic generated by the proposal . Sections 1 .2.1 and 1 .3.4 insofar as they define "Hazard Lands" I (Section 1 .2.1 (c) ) and provide conditions for considering development with Hazard land areas. I The subject lands are presently zoned "Ml-Industrial" by Restricted Area (zoning) By-law 1587, as amended. Notwithstanding this zoning, only existing uses, or new uses appropriately zoned could be permitted. In that regard, only uses which are in conformity with the Official Plan could be considered for zoning approval . i i In accordance with the Department's procedures, the subject j application was circulated, on October 22, 1981 , to various affected departments and agencies for review and comment. The I responses to this circulation are summarized below. i Report No. : PD-26-82 , , ,/3 Region of Durham (Received Nov. 5, 1981 ) "Further to your request for comments on the above, please be advised that the subject site is designated "Major Open Space" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. It is also located within an area where a waterfront plan shall be prepared and adopted by Regional Council . Section 12.3,3 of the Durham Plan stipulates that, prior to the preparation of such a waterfront plan, infilling between two existing residential dwellings which are no more than approximately 300 feet apart and on the same side of the road may be permitted provided that the Region and the area municpality are satisfied that such development will not jeopardize the objectives of the Durham Plan. In addition, Section 16.9.9 of the Durham Plan indicates that: "All proposed lots shall have frontage upon, and access to, a public road which is maintained by the appropriate authority as open to traffic on a year-round basis and is of a standard of construction adequate to provide for the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. " I The conformity of this application to the Durham Plan is contingent upon its meeting the aforemtioned provisions of Section 12.3.3 and 16.9.9." Ministry of Natural Resources (Received Dec. 7, 1981 ) "This property is within the 100 year erosion limit of Lake Ontario as shown in the Canada-Ontario Flood and Erosion Prone Areas Mapping, and there is a thirty foot high bluff in front of the property which has been actively eroding in recent ,years. The owner has attempted to control this erosion and this Ministry was in contact with him early in 1980. We recommended a few criteria to assist him in protecting his property, but to our knowledge the work was not planned nor supervised by an engineer. If further new development is to take place the erosion risk and the effectiveness of the protection measures should be examined by an engineer, before the property is rezoned or severed. As we have been involved previously, we will ask our engineer to make an inspection of the site (but not necessarily to do an engineering study). When he has seen the site we will make further comments. At this time we would not be in favour of rezoning or severing the property. " M.N.R. Follow-up (Received Feb. 2, 1982) Further to our letter of December 4, 1981 , our engineers have now had an opportunity to assess the erosion potential of the shoreline in view of the stabilization work Mr. Winters carried out in 1980. We recommend against the proposed rezoning. While Mr. Winters has probably slowed down the i Report No. : PD-26-82 . . ./4 loss of shoreline, and this should help protect his existing house, it does not provide the necessary 100 years of protection for new structures. The estimated 100 year erosion limit is at the rear of Mr. Winters ' property. A thirty foot high bluff exists along the shoreline and serious erosion is occurring which threatens several other houses and properties in the vicinity. In order for Mr. Winters ' shoreline protection to be effective, a continuous program of inspections and maintenance would be necessary. This would be quite expensive, and would be difficult to achieve without municipal or other government involvement. In view of the high risk to life and property, we would strongly recommend against re-zoning this property to permit further development. " Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (Received Nov. 27, 1981 ) "The Authority has no objection to the rezoning of those lands, as indicated in red on the attached copy, for residential uses. " Town of Newcastle Public Works Dept. (Received Nov. 17, TTM- "The present road serving the subject property is deficient in structural adequacy and width. It is also located relatively close to the top of the bank along the shoreline of Lake Ontario. Therefore any dedicated road widening would be from the north side of Crescent Avenue. For the above reasons, I would recommend that the application for rezoning to permit the creation of an additional residential lot, be denied." Town of Newcastle Long Range Planner (Received Dec. 8/81 ) "As the Regional Planning Department has indicated in their comments dated October 30, 1981 , the conformity of this application is contingent upon the lot having frontage on a road which is of a standard of construction adequate to provide for the additional traffic. The Newcastle Works Department has indicated that the subject road is deficient in structural adequacy and width. As such, the application would not appear to be in conformity with Section 16.9.9 of the Regional Plan and would be considered premature pending road j improvements. In addition, the Ministry of Natural Resources has indicated that the lake frontage has been actively i Report No. : PD-26-82 . . ./5 eroding during recent years. Given the narrow width of Crescent Ave. and the relatively shallow depth of the proposed lot, I believe that the application is premature pending a more detailed investigation of the potential erosion hazard. " The Town of Newcastle Building Department and Fire Department offered no objection to the proposal. COMMENTS Staff have reviewed the subject application for rezoning submitted by Mrs. Jeanne Winters, bearing in mind the comments received through the circulation process. In that regard, there are two areas of concern which prevent staff from offering a positive recommendation. The first of these being the question of Official Plan conformity and the second being the presence of a serious erosion problem. The lands in question front upon and would require access from Crescent Avenue which has a road allowance width of only twenty feet (20' ) and which has been identified as structurally deficient by the Town's Public Works Department. In that respect, and as recited earlier, Section 16.9.9 of the Regional Official Plan would prevent the severance of a lot unless such lot has frontage upon and access to a publicly assumed road maintained on a year-round basis of a standard of construction adequate to provide for the proposed additional traffic. Discussions with our Works Department staff, and their written comments, indicate that the road is presently deficient. It therefore follows that the road is not of an adequate standard for additional traffic. Since the proposal does not comply with the policies or intent of the Durham Regonal Official Plan, a by-law amendment cannot be approved. I i Report No. : PD-26-82 . . ./6 Similarly, the comments of the Ministry of Natural Resources have indicated the presence of a serious erosion problem and the fact that the proposed residence would fall within the estimated one hundred year erosion limit for Lake Ontario. For these reasons, they cannot support the requested rezoning. I Staff note for the Committee's information that a meeting to discuss these concerns was held with Mr. Winters and the Mayor on February 2, 1982. At that time, Mr. Winters expressed concerns in respect of the length of time involved in processing the application and questioned the comments of the Works Department and the Ministry of Natural Resources. As of the date of writing, staff have confirmed that the comments of both parties remain unchanged. As far as the length of time involved in processing the aplication is concerned, staff note that this is not unusual - particularly in view of the level of review undertaken by the Ministry. In view of the foregoing, staff have no alternative but to recommend denial of the subject application. Resp6ctf y.-submitted, T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning /mjc February 8, 1982 _ lit � 5cc� KEY MAP FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON 1 : 25 000 LO LOT LOT L OT LOT ( � T"� I LOT LOT L � 0 9 ( 8 7 6 5 I 4 3 2 I s 1A C� I I I I ❑CJ I I � � I I I I I Lc I I I I I m Zi _ I SUBJECT ' SITE LAKE ONTARIO I i i I i